IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 5892 OF 2002

Union of India & Anr. ... Appellants

Versus

S. Thakur ... Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

J.M. Panchal, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against order dated

January 11,  2002,  rendered by Division Bench of

the  High  court  of  Delhi  in  Civil  Writ  Petition  No.

216/2001  by  which  the  direction  given  by  the

Central  Administrative  Tribunal  Principal  Bench,

New  Delhi  to  the  appellants,  to  grant  to  the

respondent,  who  retired  on  January  31,  1997  as

Assistant  Director,  Intelligence  Bureau,  upgraded

scale of Rs. 12000-16500 with effect from January

1, 1996, vide judgment dated January 23, 2001 in

O.A. No. 2185 of 1999, is upheld.

2. The Fifth Central Pay Commission was set up by the

Government of India vide Resolution dated April 9,

1994.   The  Commission  submitted  it’s  Report  on

January  30,  1997  relating  to  structure  of

emoluments, allowances, benefits to be paid to the

Central  Government  employees  including  Union

Territories,  Members  of  All-India  services  and

personnel  belonging  to  the  Armed  forces.   Apart

from revising  the  pay  scale  of  employees  at  each

stage, the Commission recommended that out of 52

posts of  Assistant Director in Intelligence  Bureau,

40 posts be upgraded and placed in the pay scale of

Rs.3700-5000  whereas  12  posts  be  upgraded  as

Joint Deputy Director and placed in the pay scale of

Rs.4500-5700.   Vide  Government  order  dated

October  16,  1998, 40 posts  of Assistant Directors

were  placed  in  the  pay  scale  of  Rs.12000-16500

2

corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.3700-5000

and the remaining 12 posts were placed in the scale

of  Rs.14300-18300  corresponding  to  pre-existing

scale  of  Rs.4500-5700 and re-designated as  Joint

Deputy  Directors.    It  was also  mentioned  in  the

said  order  that  the  implementation  of  the  orders

involved  restructuring  of  the  Executive  cadre  and

redistribution of posts and therefore  higher scales

would  be  applicable  only  prospectively,  i.e.,  from

October  1,  1997.   The  incumbents,  who  were

similarly  situated,  were  granted  benefit  of  higher

pay  scale  with  effect  from  January  1,  1996.

Therefore, the respondent who retired from service

as  Assistant  Director  (Executive)  on  January  31,

1997  gave  a  representation  that  the  benefit  of

upgraded scale be extended to him from January 1,

1996.  The said representation was rejected on July

13,  1999.   Feeling  aggrieved  the  respondent  filed

original  application  No.  2185  of  1999  before  the

Central  Administrative  Tribunal  Principal  Bench

New Delhi with a prayer to direct the appellants to

3

grant benefit  of  upgraded scale  to him with effect

from January 1, 1996.

3. The Tribunal sought a clarification from the Learned

Counsel  of  the  appellants  as  to  whether  any

restructuring  of  cadre  and  redistribution  of  posts

was actually involved insofar as Assistant Directors

were concerned.  The Tribunal was informed that no

such  restructuring  of  cadre  and  redistribution  of

posts were involved as far as those 40 posts were

concerned and changes were required to be made

only in regard to the remaining 12 posts which were

earmarked  for  upgradation.   Under  the

circumstances  the  Tribunal  found  that  Assistant

Directors (Executive) in the group of 40 could have

been  placed  in  the  higher  grade  with  effect  from

January 1, 1996 itself  and delaying the benefit  of

revision  of  pay  scale  till  October  1,  1997  was

unreasonable.   Therefore,  by  Judgment  dated

January  23,  2001,  the  Tribunal  directed  the

appellants to grant the upgraded scale of Rs.12000-

4

16500 to the respondent with effect from January 1,

1996.

4. Feeling  aggrieved  the  appellant  invoked  extra

ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court by filing CWP

No.  216  of  2001.   The  High  Court  by  Judgment

dated January 11, 2002 has dismissed the petition

giving rise to the instant appeal.

5. This Court  has heard the Learned Counsel  of  the

parties  at  length  and  considered  the  documents

forming part of the appeal.

6. The  plea  that  as  restructuring  of  cadre  and

redistribution of posts was involved in so far as the

Assistant  Directors  were  concerned  and  therefore

the policy decision taken by the State Government

to  give  benefit  of  upgraded  scale  to  an  Assistant

Director  (Executive)  with  effect  from  October  01,

1997 should not have been interfered with by the

Tribunal and by the High Court is devoid of merits.

There  is  no dispute  nor there  can be  any,  to  the

principle that fixation of pay and date from which

5

the benefit of revised pay scale would be admissible

is  the  function of  the  Executive  and the scope  of

judicial review of such an administrative decision is

very limited.  However, it is equally well-settled that

the Courts would interfere  with the administrative

decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity

as  well  as  the  date  from  which  the  revised  pay

scales would be made applicable if it is found that

such  a  decision  is  unreasonable,  unjust  and

prejudicial to a section of employees.

7. As observed earlier, no restructuring of cadre and

redistribution  of  posts  in  regard  to  40  posts  of

Assistant  Directors  was  involved  at  all  so  as  to

justify  the  stand  of  the  appellants  to  extend  the

benefits of revised pay scales of Assistant Directors

with effect from January 1, 1997.  No other reason

could be advanced by the appellants to justify their

stand that the Assistant Directors were entitled to

benefit of revised pay scale with effect from January

1,  1997.   As  the  appellants  were  not  required  to

undertake exercise of restructuring of cadre nor was

6

it  necessary  to  amend the  recruitment  Rules,  the

Assistant Directors forming part of the group of 40

to  which the respondent belonged  could not  have

been denied the benefit of revision of pay scale with

effect  from  January  1,  1996,  which  benefit  was

awarded to other similarly situated employees with

effect from January 1, 1996.  As the decision to give

benefit  of  revision  of  pay  scale  to  the  Assistant

Directors  with  effect  from  October  1,  1997  was

found  to  be  unreasonable,  unjust,  arbitrary  and

prejudicial  to  the  section  of  the  employees,  the

Tribunal directed the appellants to grant benefit of

revision of pay scale to the respondent with effect

from January 1, 1996.  The said decision was not

found to be erroneous or illegal at all and therefore

the High Court was justified in not interfering with

the same while exercising powers under Article 226

of the Constitution.       

8. In  view  of  the  above,  the  appeal  fails  and  is

dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

7

……………………….J. [R.V. Raveendran]

……………………….J. [J.M. Panchal]

New Delhi; October 17, 2008.

8